The State of Missouri's case against Arnold Stephen Barber was questioned at length during oral arguments before the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District judges who sat Monday afternoon at the Linn County Courthouse.

Assistant Attorney General Shaun Mackelprang was on the defensive for most of his 10 minutes before the judges, questioned repeatedly by Judge Mark Pfeiffer. Pfeiffer and Judge James E. Welsh, both of the Western District Court, were joined by 9th Circuit Judge Gary Ravens to form the panel that heard arguments during a special event in Linneus.

The Western District Court issues rulings on Tuesdays, but no time frame was given for when it will rule on Barber's case.

Barber, a former local dentist, was convicted by an Adair County jury in June 2011 of two counts of felony witness tampering and later sentenced to five years in prison. He is currently free on an appeal bond and was in attendance at Monday's proceedings.

He declined to comment following the arguments.

Barber was found to have offered a $150,000 bribe in exchange for the parents of a sexual abuse victim in the Tom Oswald case to not cooperate with the prosecution. Oswald later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to seven years in prison. He died in custody in March 2012.

Barber's attorney, J.R. Hobbs, used his time before the judges to call on them to order, at the least, a new trial, but said he believes the jury's decision should be reversed based on insufficient evidence and a "fatal variance."

Hobbs focused on the secretly videotaped conversation that showed Barber extending a $150,000 offer to Seth Shumaker, who was representing the victim's parents for a possible civil case. Hobbs said that in the months prior to that meeting, Brent Mayberry, who was also representing the victim's parents in the possible civil case, had contacted Robert Russell, who at the time was Tom Oswald's criminal defense attorney, to discuss a settlement in the yet-to-be-filed civil case for a sum of $150,000.

At the victim's family's orders, Mayberry later said no settlement would be sought, but Hobbs said there is no evidence that Barber had knowledge the offer had been withdrawn.

Hobbs also focused on Barber's use of the phrase "above board and legal" during the videotaped conversation, saying it proved his client had no ill intentions.

Hobbs based his call for a new trial on the charges themselves, which initially accused Barber of offering $150,000 directly to the parents, but was later changed to indicate the offer was made through Shumaker.

"This is a substantial change," Hobbs said. "This is simply conforming the evidence to the charge."

While Hobbs faced few questions during his argument - judges are allowed to interrupt attorneys at any time - Pfeiffer was noticeably more engaged during Mackelprang's discussions of the case. He questioned Mackelprang if it was a coincidence Barber used the same dollar figure Mayberry had suggested, and suggested Barber believed he was being represented by Shumaker, an argument the defense has made both at trial and during appeal.

Page 2 of 2 - Mackelprang said he didn't believe it was a coincidence, that it was reasonable to believe Oswald had relayed details of the possible and then canceled settlement offer to Barber, who had driven Oswald to and from his legal meetings.

He also disagreed with the contention that Barber would have believed he had any official legal relationship with Shumaker.

"I don't think he thought that," Mackelprang said. "There's never a mention of any ongoing settlement negotiations, there's never a mention of a prior offer, there's never a mention he's there to settle a civil case, he doesn't mention that he wants to ask for advice, or hire you as an attorney."

When Pfeiffer asked whether Barber was "a confused guy" who knew about the $150,000 civil case offer and was simply attempting to execute that settlement, Mackelprang pointed to the timing of the meeting, which was a month after Oswald's criminal trial began.

"I think that's a question for the jurors," Mackelprang said. "Is [Barber] confused, or is he having trouble articulating something he knows is illegal."

The judges voiced their displeasure with the fact much of the trial's transcript - specifically all of Barber's testimony under direct examination and a majority of the cross examination - is missing due to a technical problem with the recordings.

But Mackelprang said given the scope of the appeal, which only includes decisions and possible errors the court made during the trial, that portion of the testimony is not necessary. He went on to call Barber's testimony "self-serving" and said the court made no rulings during that examination.

"What we're talking about here are credibility determinations the jury had to weigh. They had to look at the tape and see what [Barber] said there and compare it to his claim at trial," Mackelprang said. "When someone says, 'I want this money to be a gift, not a loan, to get them to not cooperate with the prosecutor,' that goes beyond trying to settle a civil case.

The Daily Express reported Barber's testimony during the trial. Under direct examination by Ed Campbell, who was his attorney at the time, Barber told the court he had been fooled by Oswald, who had violated his trust, and believed he was acting within the law.

Under cross examination, Adair County Prosecuting Attorney Matt Wilson questioned Barber on his "above board and legal" comment as well as his request the victim's parents "not cooperate with the prosecutor" in relation to the $150,000 offer.